Method and apparatus for expert verification

ABSTRACT

In exemplary embodiments, an apparatus and method for verifying experts on a consultation system is provided. Identity and credential information is received at a web server from a potential expert. A selection of a category that the potential expert wants to be admitted is also received. The identity information and at least a portion of the credential information may be verified. The potential expert is accepted as an expert based in part on a result of the verifying of the identity and credential information. Once accepted, an account associated with the potential expert is activated to allow the potential expert to become an expert and to allow the expert to provide answers on the consultation system when the potential expert is accepted.

RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.12/854,836, filed Aug. 11, 2010, entitled “Method and Apparatus forExpert Verification,” which claims priority benefit of U.S. ProvisionalPatent Application Ser. No. 61/233,046 filed on Aug. 11, 2009 entitled“Method and Apparatus for Expert Quality Control,” which is incorporatedherein by reference. The present application is also related to U.S.patent application Ser. No. 12/854,838 filed on Aug. 11, 2010 entitled“Method and Apparatus for Expert Quality Control,” U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 12/854,846 filed on Aug. 11, 2010 entitled “Methodand Apparatus for Creation of New Channels in a Consultation System,”and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/854,849 filed on Aug. 11, 2010entitled “Method and Apparatus for Determining Pricing Options in aConsultation System,” which are all incorporated herein by reference.

FIELD

The present application relates generally to the field of computertechnology and, in specific exemplary embodiments, to methods andsystems for expert verification.

BACKGROUND

Presently, many online websites allow for exchange of information. Someof these websites provide a question and answer type capability wherebya user may post a question and one or more other users may provide areply. Often time, any user on the Internet may be able to post thereply. While some of these users may have some qualification orexpertise in a particular area, there is no requirement that the userhave particular qualifications in order to post a response to a questionor that the user has his or her qualifications verified.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

Various ones of the appended drawings merely illustrate exemplaryembodiments of the present invention and cannot be considered aslimiting its scope.

FIG. 1 is a diagram of an exemplary environment in which embodiments ofthe present invention may be practiced.

FIG. 2 is a block diagram of an exemplary consultation system.

FIG. 3 is a block diagram of an exemplary web server.

FIG. 4 is a block diagram of an exemplary verification engine.

FIG. 5 is a block diagram of an exemplary quality control engine.

FIG. 6 is a flowchart of an exemplary method for accepting an expert.

FIG. 7 is a flowchart of an exemplary method for expert quality control.

FIG. 8 is a screenshot of an example of a portion of an expertregistration landing page.

FIG. 9 is a screenshot of an example of a portion of a categoryselection page.

FIG. 10 is a screenshot of an example of a portion of an ID verificationpage.

FIG. 11 is a screenshot of an example of a portion of a credentialverification page.

FIG. 12 is a simplified block diagram of a digital device within which aset of instructions, for causing the machine to perform any one or moreof the methodologies discussed herein, may be executed.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The description that follows includes illustrative systems, methods,techniques, instruction sequences, and computing machine programproducts that embody the present invention. In the followingdescription, for purposes of explanation, numerous specific details areset forth in order to provide an understanding of various embodiments ofthe inventive subject matter. It will be evident, however, to thoseskilled in the art that embodiments of the inventive subject matter maybe practiced without these specific details. In general, well-knowninstruction instances, protocols, structures and techniques have notbeen shown in detail.

As used herein, the term “or” may be construed in either an inclusive orexclusive sense. Similarly, the term “exemplary” is construed merely tomean an example of something or an exemplar and not necessarily apreferred or ideal means of accomplishing a goal. Additionally, althoughvarious exemplary embodiments discussed below focus on verification ofexperts, the embodiments are given merely for clarity and disclosure.Alternative embodiments may employ other systems and methods and areconsidered as being within the scope of the present invention.

Embodiments of the present invention provide systems and methods forexpert verification. In exemplary embodiments, potential experts gothrough an application and registration process in order to be acceptedand activated on a consultation system. Application and registrationinformation is received from each potential expert. The application andregistration information may include identification information andcredentials of the potential expert. The application information mayalso include a selection of at least one category to which the potentialexpert wants to be admitted. The application and registrationinformation may cause a potential expert's application to be rejected(e.g., if minimum requirements and standards are not met). If it doesnot cause a rejection, the application and registration information maybe placed on hold, or verified, in part or in whole, to determinewhether to accept the potential expert and activate an associatedaccount; it also may be verified, in part or in whole, at a later pointin time, for example, to determine whether to expand the categories intowhich the expert is admitted or to maintain as active the associatedaccount. The application and registration information may also includevarious kinds of tests, such as subject matter proficiency tests, siteusage tests, customer service skills tests, and other tests aimed todetermine qualifications, quality, and likely performance. Should thepotential expert be accepted based on the application and registrationprocess, the potential expert becomes an expert on the consultationsystem and may be associated with one or more categories as an expert inthe categories.

Once accepted and activated, the experts may provide answers to usersand receive feedback in various forms from users and peers. Feedback onperformance of an expert on the consultation system is received for theexpert. The feedback may be from users of the consultation system, otherexperts on the consultation system, or third-parties with relevantexpertise and may comprise direct and indirect feedback. The directfeedback may comprise one or more of rating the expert, rating theanswers of the expert, receiving a complaint for the expert, receiving asurvey on the expert or the answers of the expert, and receiving acompliment for the expert. Indirect feedback comprises one or more ofaccepting a response provided by the expert, requesting a refund afterreceiving a response provided by the expert, paying a bonus to theexpert, and opting into or out of future responses or communicationsfrom the expert (e.g., follow-up communications, marking communicationsfrom an expert as spam). The expert feedback may comprise a report onthe expert whereby the report directed to one or more of the correctnessor completeness of a response provided by the expert, theprofessionalism of the expert, and a violation of site policy committedby the expert. The expert feedback may further comprise a surveyperformed on the expert. Adjustment factors are recorded for the expert.The adjustment factors comprise public and non-public actions associatedwith the expert. The expert is then evaluated using the feedback and theadjustment factors. The evaluation may result in a score or ranking forthe expert. Based on the score or ranking, the consultation system mayperform various actions (e.g., granting and revoking privileges oraccess to certain questions, sending feedback and other information,suspending or deleting the accounts of experts with low scores). Thescore or rank may also be used to determine one or more of a paymentamount, commission, bonus, and revenue share percentage for the expert.Thus, the performance of each expert may be reviewed using various formsof feedback in order to provide expert quality control (e.g., managementof the quality of experts and answers) on the consultation system. Basedon the scores, the consultation system may perform various actions(e.g., ranking, granting and revoking privileges or access to certainquestions, sending feedback and other information, suspending ordisabling the accounts of experts with low scores).

FIG. 1 shows an exemplary environment 100 in which embodiments of thepresent invention may be practiced. The exemplary environment 100comprises a consultation system 102 coupled via a communications network104 to one or more user clients 106 and expert clients 108. Thecommunication network 104 may comprise one or more local area networksor wide area networks such as, for example, the Internet and telephonesystems.

In exemplary embodiments, the consultation system 102 provides a forumwhere users may post or pose questions for which experts may provideanswers. The consultation system 102 may provide the forum via awebsite. In some embodiments, at least portions of the forum (e.g.,asking of questions or receiving of responses) may occur via thewebsite, mobile phone, text messaging, telephone, video, VoIP, otherwebsites, or other computer software applications. Because theconsultation system 102 is network based (e.g., Internet, publicswitched telephone network (PSTN), cellular network), the users usingthe consultation system 102 and experts providing answers may begeographically dispersed (e.g., may be located anywhere in the world).As a result an expert may provide answers to a user thousands of milesaway. Additionally, the consultation system 102 allows a large number ofusers and experts to exchange information at the same time and at anytime.

By using embodiments of the present invention, a user posting a questionmay easily obtain a tailored answer. Accordingly, one or more of themethodologies discussed herein may obviate a need for additionalsearching for answers, which may have the technical effect of reducingcomputing resources used by one or more devices within the system.Examples of such computing resources include, without limitation,processor cycles, network traffic, memory usage, storage space, andpower consumption.

In various embodiments, a user may pose a question and one or moreexperts may provide answers. In various embodiments, the question may bematched with a category of experts, more specific set of experts, oreven individual experts, sometimes on a rotating basis by userselection, a keyword based algorithm, a quality based algorithm (orscore or rating), or other sorting mechanism that may includeconsiderations such as, for example, likely location, time zone. Aback-and-forth communication can occur. The user may accept an answerprovided by one or more of the experts. In an alternative embodiment,the user may be deemed to have accepted the answer if the user does notreject it. By accepting the answer, the user validates the expert'sanswer which, in turn, may boost a score or rating associated with theexpert. The user may also pay the expert for any accepted answers andmay add a bonus. The user may also leave positive, neutral or negativefeedback regarding the expert. More details regarding the consultationsystem 102 and its example functions will be discussed in connectionwith FIG. 2 below.

The exemplary user client 106 is a device associated with a useraccessing the consultation system 102 (e.g., via a website, telephonenumber, text message identifier, or other contact means associated withthe consultation system 102). The user may comprise any individual whohas a question or is interested in finding answers to previously askedquestions. The user client 106 comprises a computing device (e.g.,laptop, PDA, cellular phone) which has communication network accessability. For example, the user client 106 may be a desktop computerinitiating a browser for access to information on the communicationnetwork 104. The user client 106 may also be associated with otherdevices for communication such as a telephone.

In exemplary embodiments, the expert client 108 is a device associatedwith an expert. The expert, by definition, may be any person that has,or entity whose members have, knowledge and appropriate qualificationsrelating to a particular subject matter. Some examples of expert subjectmatters include health (e.g., dental), medical (e.g., eye orpediatrics), legal (e.g., employment, intellectual property, or personalinjury law), car, tax, computer, electronics, parenting, relationships,and so forth Almost any subject matter that may be of interest to a userfor which an expert has knowledge and appropriate qualifications may becontemplated. The expert may, but does not necessarily need to, have alicense, certification or degree in a particular subject matter. Forexample, a car expert may have practical experience working the past 20years at a car repair shop. In some embodiments, the expert may be auser (e.g., expert can post a question).

The expert client 108 may comprise a computing device (e.g., laptop,PDA, cellular phone) which has communication network access ability. Forexample, the expert client 108 may be a desktop computer initiating abrowser to exchange information via the communication network 104 withthe consultation system 102. The expert client 108 may also beassociated with other devices for communication such as a telephone.

In accordance with one embodiment, an affiliate system 110 may beprovided in the exemplary environment 100. The affiliate system 110 maycomprise an affiliate website or other portal which may include some ofthe components of the consultation system 102 or direct their users tothe consultation system 102. The affiliate system 110 may also beassociated with other devices for communication such as a telephone. Forexample, the affiliate system 110 may provide a website for a car group.A link or question box may be provided on the affiliate website to allowmembers of the car group to ask questions. Answers in response to thequestions may be provided, in part, from the consultation system 102, orthe member asking the question may be directed to the consultationsystem 102 for the answer. The members may, in some cases, only haveaccess to certain categories or experts. In one embodiment, a RSS feedmay be used to feed data from the consultation system 102 to theaffiliate system 110. The users of the affiliate system 110 may betagged with the affiliate depending on if and how the users areregistered with the consultation system 102. It should be noted that theaffiliate system 110 may comprise any type or category of affiliatesites. In some cases, the affiliate system 110 may involve questionsbeing answered by the affiliate or persons involved with the affiliate.

The environment 100 of FIG. 1 is exemplary. Alternative embodiments maycomprise any number of consultation systems 102, user clients 106,expert clients 108, and affiliate systems 110 coupled together via anytype of one or more communication networks 104, and still be within thescope of exemplary embodiments of the present invention. For example,while only one consultation system 102 is shown in the environment 100,alternative embodiments may comprise more than one consultation system102. For instance, the consultation systems 102 may be regionallyestablished.

Referring now to FIG. 2, the consultation system 102 is shown in moredetail. In exemplary embodiments, the consultation system 102 maycomprise a load balancer 202 which distributes work between two or moreweb servers 204 in order to optimize resource utilization and minimizeresponse time. In some embodiments, a firewall 201 may be provided priorto the load balancer 202.

In exemplary embodiments, the web servers 204 are responsible foraccepting communications from the user client 106 (e.g., request orquestion) and expert client 108 (e.g., response) and serving theresponse including data content. In some instances, the request andresponse may be in HTTP or HTTPS which will result in HTML documents andlinked objects (e.g., images) being provided to the user and expertclients 106 and 108. The communications may include, for example,questions from the users, answers from the experts, acceptance from theuser, payment information, account update information videos, documents,photographs and voice The web server 204 will be discussed in moredetail in connection with FIG. 3.

Information used by the web server 204 to generate responses may beobtained from one or more database servers 206 and a file server 208.The exemplary database servers 206 store data or are coupled with datarepositories storing data used by the consultation system 102. Examplesof data include user information (e.g., username, email address, creditcard or other payment information), expert information (e.g., name,licenses, certifications, education and work history), previously askedquestions and corresponding answers, and transaction information (e.g.,payment, accepts, etc.). Essentially any data may be stored in, oraccessed by, the database servers 206 including every user and expertinteraction with the consultation system 102. Examples of interactionsinclude how many questions the user has asked, which experts providedanswers to the questions, and whether the user accepted the answers andpaid the expert.

Content on the database servers 206 (or accessed by the database servers206) may be organized into tables, and the tables may be linkedtogether. For example, there may be one table for every question thathas been previously asked, another table for posts (e.g., answers) toeach question, and other tables for users and experts. In one example ofthe present invention, over 430 tables or spreadsheets are linkedtogether.

In some embodiments, the database servers 206 may include logic toaccess the data stored in the tables. The logic may comprise a pluralityof queries (e.g., thousands of queries) that are pre-written to accessthe data. For example, one query may be directed to determining everyquestion that a particular user has asked. In this example, a user tablemay be searched based on this query to determine the user's unique username or identity. Once the user name is determined, a question table maybe accessed to find all questions ever asked by a user having theparticular user name.

It should be noted that the functions of the database server 206 may beembodied within the web server 204. For example, the database servers206 may be replaced by database storage devices or repositories locatedat the web servers 204. Therefore, any reference to the database server206 and database storage device are interchangeable. Alternatively, someor all of the query logic may be embodied within the web server 204.

In exemplary embodiments, a plurality of database servers 206 isprovided. The plurality of database servers 206 may share data and thusbe identical (or close to being identical). By having identical databaseservers 206, load balancing and database backup may be provided. Forexample, if two database servers 206 are embodied in the consultationsystem 102, then half of the data accesses or queries may be directed toone database server 206 and the other half to the second database server206.

The file server 208 stores or accesses files such as, for example,pictures, videos, voice files, PDF documents, Word documents, andPowerPoint presentations. When a particular file is requested orrequired in order to generate a response, the web server 204 may querythe file server 208 for the file. Alternatively, the files may be storedat the database server 206 or other database storage devices, forexample.

An application server 210 may also be provided in the consultationsystem 102. The application server 210 may provide applications andfunctions that are centralized to the consultation system 102. Forexample, the application server 210 may perform credit card processingwith a bank that is coupled to the consultation system 102 via a network(e.g., the communication network 104).

It should be appreciated that in alternative embodiments, theconsultation system 102 may include fewer or more components than shownin FIG. 2. For example, the consultation system 102 may comprise anynumber of web servers 204, database servers 206, file server 208, andapplication server 210. In another example, the file server 208 andapplication server 210 may be removed from the consultation system 102and their functions performed by other servers in the consultationsystem 102. It will also be appreciated that the various servers may beembodied within each other and/or the consultation system 102 may beembodied within a single server. For example, the database server 206may be embodied, as a storage device within the web server 204. It isalso noted that the various servers of the consultation system 102 maybe geographically dispersed within the exemplary environment 100.

Referring now to FIG. 3, one of the exemplary web servers 204 is shownin more detail. As discussed, the web servers 204 share in the workloadin order to provide optimized performance. As such, each of the webservers 204 will include similar engines and modules. In the exemplaryembodiment of FIG. 3, the web server 204 comprises a graphical interfaceengine 302, an accounts engine 304, a consultation analysis engine 306,an expert verification engine 308, a quality control engine 310, and apayment engine 312 communicatively coupled together.

The exemplary graphical interface engine 302 generates graphicalrepresentations provided via the web page. In exemplary embodiments, thegraphical interface engine 302 builds a page (e.g., made up of HTML,Javascript, CSS, sound, video, images, and other multimedia) that ispresented to the user client 106 or expert client 108. The pagecomprises static text (e.g., “Welcome to JustAnswer.”) and dynamic data(e.g., “Hello, hulagirl. You joined 3 months ago; have asked 17questions; have accepted 12 answers.”). The dynamic data may beobtained, at least in part, from the database servers 206. In exemplaryembodiments, the dynamic data may be retrieved using querying logicassociated with the web server 204, the database server 206, or acombination of both, as discussed above.

The exemplary accounts engine 304 sets up and maintains user accountswith the consultation system 102. Initially, the accounts engine 304 mayprovide a registration page via the graphical interface engine 302 foran individual (e.g., a user or expert) to fill out. The informationcollected via the registration page may be stored in the database server206. Examples of information include username, email address, andbilling and payment information. With respect to experts, the accountsengine may also collect information regarding the identity of theexpert, information on credentials (e.g., license and certificationnumbers, degrees including university attended and years of attendance,employment history), and other data relating to the expert and theexpert's application. Accounts for users may be automaticallyestablished and activated based on certain actions taken by the user,such as asking a question, agreeing to the terms of the consultationsystem, or providing payment. However, experts, in accordance withexemplary embodiments, proceed through an acceptance and verificationprocess. If accepted, an expert account may then be established andactivated by the accounts engine 304. The verification process will bediscussed in more detail below.

The consultation analysis engine 306 manages answers in response toquestions which have been posted to the consultation system 102. Inexemplary embodiments, the consultation analysis engine 306 will receivequestions along with indications of a category or subject matter eachquestion is directed to from users. In various embodiments, a user mayutilize a question page to enter a question which the user wants anexpert to answer. The question page may provide a field for entering thequestion, relevant information relating to the question (e.g. make andmodel of a car), as well as a selection box for selecting a subjectmatter expert under which the question should be posted to. In exemplaryembodiments, other pages may be presented to the user before or afterthe question is submitted to experts, to obtain further data from orprovide data to the user. For example, a question regarding how tochange the battery in a specific type of car may be categorized as a carquestion or a question for that specific type of car. In someembodiments, the question will then be posted to a car care portion(e.g., car care web pages) of the consultation system 102. The questionis also recorded into a corresponding table in the database server 206(e.g., in a question table) and the user name of the user may also beentered into a corresponding table (e.g., user table). In someinstances, the question may be outputted back to the user so that theuser may confirm the question or edit the question if needed. The usermay also provide an amount that the user is willing to pay for anaccepted answer, in some embodiments, as an amount selected by the userfrom different options offered to the user.

Once the question is posted on the consultation system 102, experts mayprovide answers in response to the question. The questions may be postedor otherwise communicated to a general or subject matter specificquestion list of recent questions that have been posted by users, a morespecific group of experts, or certain experts one-at-a-time. In variousembodiments, the question list may be sorted by certain types ofinformation such as time of posting, the amount the user is willing topay (e.g., value), the user's history of accepting previous answers,information regarding the subject matter of the question, or whetherreplies have been previously posted. Experts may periodically review thequestion list or other communications alerting them to questions todetermine if there are any questions that the expert would like toanswer. The expert may base their determination, in part, on thecomplexity of the question, their expertise, the amount the user iswilling to pay for an answer, or the user's history of acceptingprevious answers. In various embodiments, the user is able to place adeposit and name a price for an answer when posting the question orplace the deposit after an expert has answered.

Should the expert decide to answer a question or request furtherinformation, depending on factors including location of the user andexpert on the consultation system, the most convenient or preferredmethod of communication of the user or expert, or the original method ofthe user asking the question, an indication is provided to the user thatthere is an answer being offered or a request for further information,sometimes in the form of the answer or request itself. The indicationmay also comprise an e-mail, text message, or pop-up notification to theuser. In some cases, the user may place a deposit (e.g., the amountagreed upon to be paid if an answer is accepted) after being given theopportunity to view a profile of the expert offering the answer or aportion of the answer.

The answer is provided to the user. The answer may be displayed on a webpage (e.g., an answer page), provided via a chat session, provided via avoice or text message, provided via video, provided by a softwareapplication, provided by other social media means (e.g., socialnetworking sites where the user has a personal profile or page), orprovided by telephone, mobile phone, or VoIP. Upon review of answersposted in response to a question, the user decides if any of the answersare acceptable to the user. The user may accept one or more answers thatare posted. In exemplary embodiments, the user will pay the expertposting any accepted answers. If a particular answer is exceptional, inexemplary embodiments, the user may also provide a bonus to the expertproviding the exceptional answer. When the user accepts an answer,monies from the deposits may also be paid to a host of the question andanswers platform (e.g., host of the consultation system 102).

In various embodiments, different pricing options may be used fordetermining what a user may pay for getting an answer to a question orwhat an expert may be paid for providing an answer. In one embodiment,the pricing options may vary for each category or subcategory based on avariety of factors. These factors may include, for example, questionlength, time of day, day of week, location, or the ability of a user topay. Additionally, discounts may be offered (e.g., two for one, ask onequestion get second for 50% off, free for pro bono users). In otherembodiments, pricing may be selected and paid for by third-parties (e.g.employers of the users). In yet other embodiments, a user may subscribeto a subscription plan (e.g., unlimited questions each month for aparticular fee or up to 10 questions each month for another fee). Inother embodiments, a user or expert may be allowed to adjust the priceprior to, during, or after the interaction between the user and theexpert.

Acceptance and non-acceptance actions are tracked by the consultationanalysis engine 306. For example, every user's accept-to-question ratiomay be tracked and may be published to experts. Thus, if the ratio islow, experts may not answer the user's questions in the future.Furthermore, the user's question posting privileges may be suspended orthe user may be removed from the consultation system 102 if the ratio islow or falls below a ratio threshold. The tracked acceptance andnon-acceptance information is stored to the database server 206, and maybe used to evaluate the quality of the experts as is discussed herein.

The user may also provide comments and feedback after viewing oraccepting one or more answers. The feedback may be provided as, forexample, a written comment, star rating, numerical scale rating, or anyother form of rating. The feedback is stored to the database server 206,and may be used in the quality control processing. User satisfactionsurveys may also be sent to collect data on the user's experience withthe site, the expert, or the answer the user received.

According to some embodiments, if the question has been previouslyanswered, a query of the database server 206 may be performed. Theanswers to previously asked questions may be stored in correspondinganswer tables in the database server 206. These embodiments may occurwhen, for example, a user searches (e.g., using Google) for previousquestions and answers. Multiple instances of access to the samequestions and/or answers may be provided via a cache. Some or all usersmay also be allowed to search some or all previous questions or answersvia a search tool on the website, or some or all previous questions oranswers may be displayed to users at the discretion of the host,affiliate, or expert of the consultation system.

The exemplary expert verification engine 308 performs verification andacceptance of experts. In accordance with exemplary embodiments, theexpert verification engine 308 verifies information provided by thepotential experts (or experts) or receives verification data used toverify the experts' identities or credentials. The verification mayoccur prior to allowing the expert to join the consultation system 102.Alternatively, the verification may occur any time after the expert hasjoined the consultation system 102. The verification engine 308 will bediscussed in more detail in connection with FIG. 4 below. More than oneverification may be performed for each expert, by requirement or by theexpert's choice.

In exemplary embodiments, the quality control engine 310 evaluatesexperts in order to promote the high quality of experts in theconsultation system 102. The evaluation may comprise scoring or rankingexperts based on various elements. For example, the quality controlengine 310 may access and review feedback associated with each expertand score each expert accordingly. The quality control engine 310 mayalso review other factors which may increase or decrease an expert'sscore or ranking. The quality control engine 310 will be discussedfurther in connection with FIG. 5.

The exemplary payment engine 312 manages the payment of fees. Inaccordance with exemplary embodiments, users pay experts for acceptedanswers to their questions, for example, by way of payments perquestions, payments per answers, payments per time frame, or payments onsubscription basis. In some instances, the user may provide a deposit inorder to view answers prior to accepting the answers. The payment engine312 may maintain a record of all these transactions. Additionally, thepayment engine 312 may work with the application server 210, ifprovided, to process payments (e.g., credit card processing, PayPalprocessing).

Referring now to FIG. 4, the exemplary expert verification engine 308 isshown in more detail. The expert verification engine 308 verifiesinformation provided by the potential experts (or experts) or receivesverification data that verifies the experts' identities or credentials.The consultation system 102 may, in some embodiments, only acceptexperts once verified. In exemplary embodiments, the expert verificationengine 308 comprises an identity verification module 402, a credentialverification module 404, a testing module 406, and an acceptance module408 communicatively coupled together. Alternative embodiments maycomprise other modules as needed depending on the type of information tobe verified (e.g., background or reference check module).

The identity verification module 402 manages verification of identityinformation provided by the potential expert (or expert). For example,the potential expert may provide one or more of a name, address, date ofbirth, full or partial or indicator of a social security number, and/orpassport number. In some embodiments, the identity verification module402 may access external databases (e.g., credit bureau databases orother third party ID verification systems) to check the enteredinformation. In some embodiments, the identify verification informationmay be XML fed to a third party system. Additionally, the third partysystem or the consultation system 102 may provide identity testquestions (e.g., in the form of multiple choices) or other checks tohelp confirm the identity of the applicant (e.g., potential expert).Such questions may include, for example, a year the applicant moved intotheir property and initials of a person with whom the applicant shareshis current address. Essentially, any question that is known by theapplicant (and relatively few others) may be used. Additionally oralternatively, some of this information may be verified manually (e.g.,a copy of the driver's license, professional license, or passport isreviewed, or credit card name check is performed) and the identityverification module 402 receives the manual verification data and usesthe manual verification data to verify the identity. If the identity ofthe applicant is not confirmed initially, the applicant may be given anopportunity to correct and resubmit the information, other processesinvolving the third party ID verification systems may be used, otherinternal manual ID verification processes may be used, or the applicantmay be rejected.

The exemplary credential verification module 404 manages verification ofcredential information provided by the potential expert (or expert).Credential information may include, for example, licenses,certifications, employment history, and educational degrees. In someembodiments, the credential verification module 404 determines whetherto send the credential information, as well as which credentialinformation to send, to one or more credential verification systems. Thedetermination may be based in part on whether the applicant meets theminimum requirements and standards of the consultation system 102 orcategory based on their credential information. The potential expert mayhave an opportunity to review these minimum requirements prior toapplying. The minimum requirements may be based on, for example,characteristics of other experts in the category (e.g., work experience,licenses, certifications). Thus, for example, the entered credentialinformation may be compared to characteristics of other successfulexperts on the consultation system 102. The determination may further bebased on the applicant's performance on a test presented by the testingmodule 406, whether the ID verification is successful, and whether thereis a need for that type of expert (or more of that type of expert). Forexample, there may be a limit placed on a number of experts allowedwithin a particular category, which may change over time. The credentialverification module 404 may access external databases (e.g., credentialverification systems such as a state bar association database oruniversity database) to verify the credential information eitherdirectly or through a third-party verification system. The credentialinformation may also be verified manually (e.g., an agent associatedwith the consultation system 102 may call a university), and the manualverification data is received by the credential verification module 404and uses the manual verification data to verify the credentials.

The testing module 406 may be used to provide subject specific tests topotential experts in order to evaluate their competence in a subjectmatter with which each potential expert wants to be associated. Thesubject specific tests may be a multiple choice quiz and/or a writingtest, and may also be given to existing experts as well as potentialexperts. These subject specific tests may be scored either automaticallyor manually. A test threshold may be utilized whereby if the potentialexpert scores below a threshold, the potential expert will not beaccepted by the consultation system 102, and if the potential expertscores above the test threshold, then the potential expert is morelikely to be accepted by the consultation system 102. The testing module406 may also provide site user tests to potential and existing expertsin order to evaluate their knowledge of how to use the site. The resultsof test given to existing experts may be used to suspend or removeexperts that perform poorly on the test, or experts may be allowed totake the test several tunes until they attain a 100% passing score.Other tests may also be provided by the testing module 406, for example,customer service skills or psychometric tests.

The acceptance module 408 determines whether to accept a potentialexpert and activate or, in the case of an existing expert expand anassociated account. In some embodiments, if the identity and at least aportion of the credential information is verified, then the acceptancemodule 408 may accept the potential expert and activate the account. Insome embodiments, the potential expert may also need to pass a thresholdon a subject matter, writing, site user and/or other test to beaccepted. In some embodiments, the acceptance module 408 may alsodetermine whether to accept a potential expert and activate anassociated account based on the ratio of asked and answered questions onthe site and/or measurement of time before questions are being answered.Activation of the account allows the expert to begin posting answers onthe consultation system 102 as well as to receive payment for theiraccepted answers.

Referring now to FIG. 5, the exemplary quality control engine 310 isshown in more detail. The quality control engine 310 evaluates expertsin order to maintain quality in the consultation system 102. Theevaluation may comprise scoring or ranking experts. The quality controlengine 310 may comprise a user feedback module 502, a peer feedbackmodule 504, an adjustment module 506, and an evaluation module 508communicatively coupled together. Further quality control modules may beprovided as needed to incorporate other factors which may be used toscore or rank experts, such as expert and answer characteristics andstatistics, and third-party sources of information and feedback.

The user feedback module 502 manages feedback based on users'experiences with experts. The user feedback may include direct feedbacksuch as, for example, written comments provided by users, apositive/neutral/negative scoring, complaints, compliments, and usersurveys. Indirect feedback may also be included in the user feedback.Examples of indirect feedback include how often users accept an expert'sanswer, give bonuses to experts, request refunds, choose to receiveanswers from or not receive answers from the expert (e.g., does not wantto receive any responses from the expert in the future), directly orindirectly rate an expert's viewable profile or background, and howoften users return to ask another question after receiving an answerfrom the expert.

The peer feedback module 504 manages feedback provided by other expertson the consultation system 102. For example, a first expert may file apositive or negative report on a second expert or the second expert'sanswer. The report may indicate whether the first expert agrees with theposted answer of the second expert, the reason for the agreement ordisagreement, or a new model answer. The report may indicate the type ofproblem being reported (e.g., whether the report is being submitted dueto a problem with the correctness or completeness of an answer, anunprofessional remark or tone, or potential violations of the law orapplicable agreements). In some embodiments, additional peer review maybe solicited and/or provided regarding the report filed by the firstexpert. In some embodiments, the first and second experts may have anopportunity to correspond with one another, for example, by the secondexpert agreeing with the first expert's report or filing a refutation ofthe report, and by the first expert responding or agreeing to withdrawthe report. Peer feedback may also include experts scoring randomly,systematically, or manually selected anonymized or non-anonymizedanswers posted on the consultation system 102. Expert quality surveysmay be periodically conducted in certain categories regarding the bestor worst experts in terms of quality and peer-to-peer interactions. Insome embodiments, the experts solicited for their additional peer reviewmay be selected at random, based on their own characteristics, by voteof their peers, or by a system of points or other measurements obtainedthrough the peer feedback module 504. In some embodiments, the expertsmay be allowed to identify any other experts as the best or worstexperts in terms of quality and peer-to-peer interactions. In someembodiments, third-party non-users of the site, for example, affiliatepersons or entities, professors of the same subject matter as thecategory of answers or experts, or others may also provide input intoreviews or rankings of the characteristics of answers or experts.

The exemplary adjustment module 506 manages other factors which mayadjust the score or rank of the experts. These factors may includepublic, miscellaneous actions associated with the consultation system102. The actions may include, for example, number of years on theconsultation system 102, awards and titles (e.g., mentor, moderator,arbitrator) received on the consultation system 102, uniqueness ofposts, time between user question and expert response, number of linksin posts, and data associated with the post. The data associated withthe post may include analysis of the number of words in a post, numberof answers posted before an acceptance of a post is received, andspelling and grammar in posts, for example. Other factors may alsoinclude number of years in the expert's profession and number oflicenses, certifications, or other credentials obtained by the expert.

Miscellaneous actions may also include non-public actions (e.g., actionswhich may not be evident to users). For example, the expert may takemore shares of non-paying or new users, thus taking a bigger monetaryrisk. The expert may also move questions posted in a wrong category to acorrect category. In another example, the expert may assist with media,marketing, and public relations efforts (e.g., speaking to the press).The expert may also be more or less professional and polite in herinteractions with other experts on the site, and more or less act inaccordance with the mission and values of the consultation system.Almost any type of factor that can affect the scoring or ranking ofexperts may be utilized, and the above provided factors are onlyexamples.

The exemplary evaluation module 508 evaluates the experts and outputs auseable result. The evaluation may be based on user feedback, peerfeedback, adjustment factors, other factors, or any combination ofthese. In some embodiments, the evaluation module 508 may generate tworesults: a public result and an internal result. The public result maybe viewable by the public or at least other experts, and may be drivenmore by user and peer feedback. The internal result may not be viewableby the public, but may be used by the consultation system 102 forinternal functions. For example, the internal result may be used to warnor remove the lowest scoring experts in the category (e.g., based onproviding poor responses, not interacting professionally or politelywith others, or violating site policies). In another example, theinternal result may be used to determine an amount that an expert may bepaid for posting accepted answers (e.g., the better the score, thebetter the pay amount). In exemplary embodiments, the internal resultmay be driven more by factors associated with the adjustment module 506or other factors. The results may be provided graphically ornumerically, in summary fashion or specifically, and in relation toother experts or other categories or not.

In some embodiments, conditions may be automatically or manually set tolimit functions of experts. For example, a new expert in a category maynot be allowed to post a response after a senior expert (e.g., experthaving been on the consultation system 102 longer) has already posted aresponse. Additionally, peer review reporting privileges of a new expertmay be withheld until the new expert reaches a certain threshold ofquestions answered, responses accepted, or time on the consultationsystem 102. Alternatively, peer review reporting privileges of non-newexperts may be revoked if the non-new expert files too many reports thathave been disagreed with by other experts. In another example, expertsmay be limited to only a set number of questions per day that they canrespond to in order to encourage quality of answers as opposed toquantity of answers.

FIG. 6 is a flowchart of an exemplary method 600 for accepting anexpert. The expert, by definition, may be any person that has knowledgeon, and the appropriate qualifications to answer questions relating to,a particular subject matter. Exemplary embodiments of the presentinvention allow accepted experts to post answers to questions orotherwise provide answers to users of the consultation system 102. Inorder to be accepted, application and registration information isinitially received from a potential expert by the accounts engine 304 atoperation 602. The registration information may include name, contactinformation, other identifying information, education, licenses,certifications, and experiences. The potential expert may also indicatewhat category or categories to which the potential expert wants to beadmitted. Alternatively, the accounts engine 304 may determine andsuggest one or more categories best suited for the expert based oncredential information (e.g., education, licenses, certifications). Forexample, the credential information may be compared with the minimumrequirements for categories to determine the categories best suited forthe expert. In one embodiment, the potential expert may create a profilebased on the entered registration information. Examples of expertregistration pages are shown in FIG. 8-FIG. 11.

The potential expert may be provided a subject matter test, writingtest, site user test, customer service skills test, or other type oftest by the testing module 406. The tests may be multiple choice,written, oral, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, thepotential expert may be associated with a general category or a categorythat does not have a subject matter test. In these embodiments, a testmay not be necessary. It should be noted that testing may be optional.If the potential expert does not pass the test, then a notice isprovided to the potential expert. In some cases, the potential expertmay be given a certain number of chances to pass the test, or may beallowed to take the test at a later date.

If the potential expert passes the test at operation 604, or in someembodiments, simply after the potential expert takes the test atoperation 604, then at operation 606, the identity of the potentialexpert is verified. In exemplary embodiments, the identity verificationmodule 402 manages the verification of the identity. The verificationmay involve receiving copies of government-issued identification,licenses, or passports or accessing various databases to check providedidentity information. The verification may be based, in part, onpersonal information of the potential expert such as name, address, ordate of birth. In some embodiments, the verification is performed by athird party ID verification system.

Credentials are verified at operation 608. The credential verificationmodule 404 manages the verification of credentials including licenses,certifications, educational degrees, awards, patents, publications, andwork experiences. In some embodiments, the potential expert providescredential information after their identity is verified or after thetest is passed. The credential verification module 406 may access orreceive information from external databases (e.g., government oruniversity databases) to verify credentials, or forward the informationto a third party verification system for external verification.

At operation 610, a determination is made as to whether to accept thepotential expert. Determination at operation 610 may be performed by theacceptance module 408. The determination may be based on test results,qualifications, the application, identity verification, verification ofone or more credentials, or any combination thereof. In someembodiments, one or more thresholds may be established which needs to beexceeded in order for the potential expert to be accepted. For example,various combinations of test scores and number/type of verifiedcredentials thresholds may be established, and a potential expert mustexceed at least one of these thresholds to be accepted. If accepted, anaccount is activated or expanded for the expert at operation 612. If thepotential expert does not exceed the threshold, then the potentialexpert is not accepted or given expanded access to questions and arejection notification may be provided at operation 614.

FIG. 7 is a flowchart of an exemplary method 700 for expert qualitycontrol in the consultation system 102. The expert quality control maycomprise scoring or ranking experts based on various feedback andfactors. The scoring or ranking may be shown to users, shown to theexpert involved, shown to other experts with or without attribution tothe scored or ranked expert, and used internally by the consultationsystem. The results of the scoring or ranking may then be used todetermine the quality of the experts associated with the consultationsystem 102 or other pieces of the consultation system including theapplication and verification process and pricing.

At operation 702, user feedback is received for each expert postinganswers on the consultation system 102 in response to a questionprovided by a user. The user feedback may include direct feedback suchas, for example, written comments provided by users, apositive/neutral/negative scoring, complaints, compliments, and usersurveys. Indirect feedback may also be included in the user feedback.Examples of indirect feedback include how often users accept an expert'sanswer, give bonuses to experts, request refunds, opt-out of answersfrom the expert, and positively rated profiles, and how often usersreturn to ask another question after receiving an answer from theexpert. The profile rating is based on a viewable profile of the expert.

Peer feedback from other experts on the consultation system 102 isreceived at operation 704. For example, a first expert may file apositive or negative report (also referred to as a “peer report”) on asecond expert or the second expert's answer. The peer report mayindicate whether the first expert agrees with the posted answer of thesecond expert, the reason for the agreement or disagreement, and a newmodel answer. The peer report may indicate whether it is being submitteddue to a problem with the correctness or completeness of an answer, anunprofessional remark or tone, or violations of the law or applicableagreements (e.g., potential copyright infringement). In someembodiments, additional peer review may be solicited and/or providedregarding the report filed by the first expert. In some embodiments, thefirst and second experts may have an opportunity to correspond to oneanother, for example, by the second expert agreeing with the firstexpert's report or filing a refutation of the report, and by the firstexpert responding or agreeing to withdraw the peer report. Peer feedbackmay also include experts scoring randomly or manually selectedanonymized or non-anonymized answers posted on the consultation system102.

In some embodiments, the peer report may be provided to the expert beingreported on. For example, a report page may be accessible by the expertto view all peer reports submitted about them. The peer reports may beorganized, for example, by date, question answered, answer, and type ofreport. For each peer report, the expert may agree with the peer reportor refute the peer report. In addition, an author of a report mayretract a report after having reviewed a refutation of the report.

In some embodiments and for some types of reports, a point/strike systemmay be implemented in peer review. For example, when a peer report isreceived that pertains to an incorrect answer given by an expert, theexpert may (1) do nothing and receive three strikes unless or until theexpert decides to agree to or refute the peer report; (2) agree with thepeer report resulting in one strike; Or (3) oppose the peer report. Inthe third case, a panel of reviewers (e.g., three reviewers) may then beselected to review the peer report and disputed answer.

The panel may be randomly chosen from other experts based on, forexample, a number of points the experts have. In one example, thepotential reviewer may see a pop-up screen reciting “Would you pleasereview an Incorrect/Incomplete Answer report?” The potential reviewercan select “Yes, right now,” “Yes, within the next 24 hours,” or “Nothanks”. If “Yes, right now” is selected, the peer report is displayedand the reviewer will have 30 minutes to provide their input on the peerreport. If “Yes, within the next 24 hours” is selected, an icon willappear on a reviewer's header tool bar for the next 24 hours. When theicon is clicked, the peer report is displayed, and the reviewer willhave 30 minutes to rule on the peer report. If “No thanks” is selected,the same pop-up will appear to another randomly selected potentialreviewer. If a reviewer does not provide input within 30 minutes afteropening the report to review, a message that their 30-minute window hasexpired will appear, and their ability to provide their input will goaway. In one embodiment, the reviewer will have to agree to an “oath”before reviewing the peer report that states that their input isprovided in good faith and solely based upon the correctness andcompleteness of the answer.

In some embodiments, the reviewers may have two choices for input. Thereviewer can agree there is a problem with the incorrect/incompleteanswer, or the reviewer may decide there is no substantial problem withthe correctness/completeness of the answer. The reviewers may also beasked to provide at least a one sentence reason for their input.

Points and strikes may be awarded based on the outcome of the panelreview. For example, if two of the three reviewers find the peer reportfully warranted, then the reporter (e.g., the expert that filed the peerreport) may receive two points and the author (e.g., the expert thatprovided the answer) may receive two strikes. However if all threereviewers find the report fully warranted, then the reporter may receivethree points and the author may receive three strikes. Alternatively, ifthe majority of reviews find the report unwarranted, then the report isnullified. Furthermore, if two of three reviewers find the reportunwarranted, the reporter may get deducted two points. If all threereviewers find the report unwarranted, the reporter may get deductedthree points. Additionally, reviewers voting in the majority with thepanel may receive three points, while a reviewer voting in the minoritymay be deducted one point. In other embodiment, if two of threereviewers find that a report is rude or unprofessional, the author ofthe report may be deducted two points. However, if all three reviewersfind the report is rude or unprofessional, the author of the report maybe deducted three points.

Accordingly, experts whose points add up to a negative number aftersubmitting or ruling on at least three peer reports may be “benched” orbarred from reporting or reviewing for a period of time (e.g., 100accepts or 1 month). In a further example, experts whose points add upto a negative number after submitting or ruling on at least nine peerreports may be benched from reporting or reviewing for a longer periodof time (e.g., 600 accepts or 6 months). While “benched” experts cancontinue to file peer reports, the peer reports may not trigger anyconsequence or process.

Additionally, any authors whose opposition to a peer report is agreedwith by the majority of reviewers three times or more may be “safe” fromthe peer input system for a period of time (e.g., another 100 answers or1 month).

It should be noted that the peer review method is described in anexemplary embodiment. Other embodiments may use a different number ofpanel members, provide a different response tune limit, use different orfewer or more report types, apply different standards and methods forexperts or other parties to review reports, apply different versions ofanonymity or lack of anonymity, apply different selection criteria foranswers or experts to be reviewed or of experts or other parties toreview the reports, and apply a different point/strike scheme.

At operation 706, other factors which may adjust the score or rank ofthe experts are recorded. These factors may include miscellaneousactions associated with the consultation system 102 (e.g., number ofyears on the consultation system 102, awards and titles received on theconsultation system 102, uniqueness of posts, number of links in posts,number of characters in posts, and data associated with the post). Thefactors may also include number of years in the expert's profession andnumber of licenses, certifications, and other credentials obtained bythe expert.

Miscellaneous actions may also include non-public actions performed bythe expert which may be beneficial to the consultation system 102. Forexample, the expert may take more shares of non-paying or new users,move questions posted in a wrong category to a correct category, orassist with media, marketing, or public relations outreach. Almost anytype of factor that can affect the scoring or ranking of experts may berecorded and/or tracked.

At operation 708, the quality control analysis is performed and useableresults outputted. The quality control analysis may be based on userfeedback, peer feedback (e.g., reports, points and strikes), adjustmentfactors, other factors, or any combination of these. In someembodiments, the evaluation module 508 may generate two results: apublic result (e.g., viewable by the public or at least other experts)and an internal result (e.g., used by the consultation system 102 tomaintain quality). In exemplary embodiments, the public result may bedriven more by user and peer feedback while the internal result may bedriven more by factors associated with the adjustment module 506.

At operation 710, the results of the quality control analysis are usedfor expert quality determination and control. In some embodiments, thepublic (or visible-to-other-experts) result may be presented, forexample, on a website associated with the consultation system 102. Forinstance, a score or ranking may be provided with an expert profileeither graphically or numerically, in summary fashion or specifically,and in relation to other experts or other categories or not. Users maythen view the score or ranking in determining whether to accept ananswer provided by the expert. In other embodiments, the internalresults may be used to maintain quality on the consultation system 102in a non-public manner. For example, the consultation system 102 maylimit the number of experts in a category by using the internal resultto remove the lowest scoring experts in the category.

In another example, the internal result may be used to determine a baseamount or percentage of a user's payment that an expert may be paid forposting accepted answers. In some embodiments, the results of thequality control analysis may be used to assist the expert inself-monitoring or self-improvement.

FIG. 8 is a screenshot of an example of a portion of the expertregistration landing page(s) of the consultation system 102. The expertregistration landing page(s) may be provided by the graphical interfaceengine 302 to the expert client 108. As shown, the expert registrationlanding page(s) provides information on the application process andaccess to requirements for categories, as well as the benefits of beingan expert. In the present example, the potential expert has selected a“legal experts” category. As a result, requirements are displayed whichindicate that the potential expert be an attorney, barrister, orsolicitor that is licensed, active, and in good standing. Should thepotential expert decide to apply, in some embodiments, the potentialuser is taken to pages where the potential expert can input personalinformation, select a category, create a profile, take a test, verifytheir identity, to describe why they want to be admitted as an expert inthe category, and provide credential information.

FIG. 9 illustrates an example of a portion of an expert categoryselection page, which may or may not be included in the applicationprocess. The potential expert may select more than one category.

FIG. 10 is an example of a portion of an identity verification page. Theidentity verification page provides, in some embodiments, identity testquestions (e.g., in the form of multiple choices) to help confirm theidentity of the applicant (e.g., potential expert). While certainquestions are displayed in the example page of FIG. 10, any questionthat is known by the applicant (and relatively few others) may be used.

FIG. 11 is an example of a portion of a credential verification page. Onthis example page, the potential expert selects the category for whichthey are providing credentials (or it may be pre-populated by theconsultation system 102). The potential expert may be asked to write aresponse to a question about why he or she wants to be an expert.License and certification details are also requested (not shown indisplayed portion of the credential verification page).

It should be noted that FIG. 8-FIG. 11 are examples and alternativeembodiments may request more, less, or other information from thepotential expert or present registration questions, verificationquestions, or tests in a different manner.

Modules, Components, and Logic

Certain embodiments described herein may be implemented as logic or anumber of modules, engines, components, or mechanisms. A module, engine,logic, component, or mechanism (collectively referred to as a “module”)may be a tangible unit capable of performing certain operations andconfigured or arranged in a certain manner. In certain exemplaryembodiments, one or more computer systems (e.g., a standalone, client,or server computer system) or one or more components of a computersystem (e.g., a processor or a group of processors) may be configured bysoftware (e.g., an application or application portion) or firmware (notethat software and firmware can generally be used interchangeably hereinas is known by a skilled artisan) as a module that operates to performcertain operations described herein.

In various embodiments, a module may be implemented mechanically orelectronically. For example, a module may comprise dedicated circuitryor logic that is permanently configured (e.g., within a special-purposeprocessor, application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or array) toperform certain operations. A module may also comprise programmablelogic or circuitry (e.g., as encompassed within a general-purposeprocessor or other programmable processor) that is temporarilyconfigured by software or firmware to perform certain operations. Itwill be appreciated that a decision to implement a module mechanically,in the dedicated and permanently configured circuitry or in temporarilyconfigured circuitry (e.g., configured by software) may be driven by,for example, cost, time, energy-usage, and package size considerations.

Accordingly, the term module should be understood to encompass atangible entity, be that an entity that is physically constructed,permanently configured (e.g., hardwired), or temporarily configured(e.g., programmed) to operate in a certain manner or to perform certainoperations described herein. Considering embodiments in which modules orcomponents are temporarily configured (e.g., programmed), each of themodules or components need not be configured or instantiated at any oneinstance in time. For example, where the modules or components comprisea general-purpose processor configured using software, thegeneral-purpose processor may be configured as respective differentmodules at different times. Software may accordingly configure theprocessor to constitute a particular module at one instance of time andto constitute a different module at a different instance of tune.

Modules can provide information to, and receive information from, othermodules. Accordingly, the described modules may be regarded as beingcommunicatively coupled. Where multiples of such modules existcontemporaneously, communications may be achieved through signaltransmission (e.g., over appropriate circuits and buses) that connectthe modules. In embodiments in which multiple modules are configured orinstantiated at different times, communications between such modules maybe achieved, for example, through the storage and retrieval ofinformation in memory structures to which the multiple modules haveaccess. For example, one module may perform an operation and store theoutput of that operation in a memory device to which it iscommunicatively coupled. A further module may then, at a later time,access the memory device to retrieve and process the stored output.Modules may also initiate communications with input or output devicesand can operate on a resource (e.g., a collection of information).

Exemplary Machine Architecture and Machine-Readable Medium

With reference to FIG. 12, an exemplary embodiment extends to a machinein the exemplary form of a computer system 1200 within whichinstructions for causing the machine to perform any one or more of themethodologies discussed herein may be executed. In exemplaryembodiments, the computer system 1200 may be any one or more of the userclient 106, the expert client 108, affiliate system 110, and servers ofthe consultation system 102. In alternative exemplary embodiments, themachine operates as a standalone device or may be connected (e.g.,networked) to other machines. In a networked deployment, the machine mayoperate in the capacity of a server or a client machine in server-clientnetwork environment, or as a peer machine in a peer-to-peer (ordistributed) network environment. The machine may be a personal computer(PC), a tablet PC, a set-top box (STB), a Personal Digital Assistant(PDA), a cellular telephone, a web appliance, a network router, a switchor bridge, or any machine capable of executing instructions (sequentialor otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that machine. Further,while only a single machine is illustrated, the term “machine” shallalso be taken to include any collection of machines that individually orjointly execute a set (or multiple sets) of instructions to perform anyone or more of the methodologies discussed herein.

The exemplary computer system 1200 may include a processor 1202 (e.g., acentral processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU) orboth), a main memory 1204 and a static memory 1206, which communicatewith each other via a bus 1208. The computer system 1200 may furtherinclude a video display unit 1210 (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD)or a cathode ray tube (CRT)). In exemplary embodiments, the computersystem 1200 also includes one or more of an alpha-numeric input device1212 (e.g., a keyboard), a user interface (UI) navigation device orcursor control device 1214 (e.g., a mouse), a disk drive unit 1216, asignal generation device 1218 (e.g., a speaker), and a network interfacedevice 1220.

Machine-Readable Medium

The disk drive unit 1216 includes a machine-readable medium 1222 onwhich is stored one or more sets of instructions 1224 and datastructures (e.g., software instructions) embodying or used by any one ormore of the methodologies or functions described herein. Theinstructions 1224 may also reside, completely or at least partially,within the main memory 1204 or within the processor 1202 duringexecution thereof by the computer system 1200, the main memory 1204 andthe processor 1202 also constituting machine-readable media.

While the machine-readable medium 1222 is shown in an exemplaryembodiment to be a single medium, the term “machine-readable medium” mayinclude a single medium or multiple media (e.g., a centralized ordistributed database, or associated caches and servers) that store theone or more instructions. The term “machine-readable medium” shall alsobe taken to include any tangible medium that is capable of storing,encoding, or carrying instructions for execution by the machine and thatcause the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies ofembodiments of the present invention, or that is capable of storing,encoding, or carrying data structures used by or associated with suchinstructions. The term “machine-readable medium” shall accordingly betaken to include, but not be limited to, solid-state memories andoptical and magnetic media. Specific examples of machine-readable mediainclude non-volatile memory, including by way of exemplary semiconductormemory devices (e.g., Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EPROM),Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM), and flashmemory devices); magnetic disks such as internal hard disks andremovable disks; magneto-optical disks; and CD-ROM and DVD-ROM disks.The term “machine-readable medium” shall also be taken to include anynon-transitory storage medium.

Transmission Medium

The instructions 1224 may further be transmitted or received over acommunications network 1226 using a transmission medium via the networkinterface device 1220 and utilizing any one of a number of well-knowntransfer protocols (e.g., HTTP). Examples of communication networksinclude a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), theInternet, mobile telephone networks, Plain Old Telephone (POTS)networks, and wireless data networks (e.g., WiFi and WiMax networks).The term “transmission medium” shall be taken to include any intangiblemedium that is capable of storing, encoding, or carrying instructionsfor execution by the machine, and includes digital or analogcommunications signals or other intangible medium to facilitatecommunication of such software.

Although an overview of the inventive subject matter has been describedwith reference to specific exemplary embodiments, various modificationsand changes may be made to these embodiments without departing from thebroader spirit and scope of embodiments of the present invention. Suchembodiments of the inventive subject matter may be referred to herein,individually or collectively, by the term “invention” merely forconvenience and without intending to voluntarily limit the scope of thisapplication to any single invention or inventive concept if more thanone is, in fact, disclosed.

The embodiments illustrated herein are described in sufficient detail toenable those skilled in the art to practice the teachings disclosed.Other embodiments may be used and derived therefrom, such thatstructural and logical substitutions and changes may be made withoutdeparting from the scope of this disclosure. The Detailed Description,therefore, is not to be taken in a limiting sense, and the scope ofvarious embodiments is defined only by the appended claims, along withthe full range of equivalents to which such claims are entitled.

Moreover, plural instances may be provided for resources, operations, orstructures described herein as a single instance. Additionally,boundaries between various resources, operations, modules, engines, anddata stores are somewhat arbitrary, and particular operations areillustrated in a context of specific illustrative configurations. Otherallocations of functionality are envisioned and may fall within a scopeof various embodiments of the present invention. In general, structuresand functionality presented as separate resources in the exemplaryconfigurations may be implemented as a combined structure or resource.Similarly, structures and functionality presented as a single resourcemay be implemented as separate resources.

These and other variations, modifications, additions, and improvementsfall within a scope of embodiments of the present invention asrepresented by the appended claims. The specification and drawings are,accordingly, to be regarded in an illustrative rather than a restrictivesense.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method of verifying experts on an onlineconsultation system, the method comprising: receiving identityinformation and credential information at a web server from a deviceassociated with a potential expert; verifying the identity informationand at least a portion of the credential information received from thepotential expert; determining whether to accept the potential expert asan expert based in part on a result of the verifying of the identity andcredential information; determining whether the potential expert meetsminimum requirements in a selected category, wherein the minimumrequirements are based on characteristics of other experts in theselected category; administering a customer service skill test to thepotential expert; automatically suggesting to the potential expert theselected category best suited to the expert's qualifications; andactivating, using one or more processors, an account associated with thepotential expert on the web server to allow the potential expert tobecome an expert and to allow the expert to provide answers on theconsultation system when the potential expert is accepted.
 2. The methodof claim 1 further comprising providing a test to the potential expertand evaluating a result of the test.
 3. The method of claim 2 whereinthe receiving and verifying of the credential information occurs basedon the identity being verified and the result of the test beingpositive.
 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising determiningwhether there is a need for a new expert in a selected category.
 5. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the verifying of the identity informationcomprises providing the potential expert with one or more identity testquestions.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the verifying of theidentity information comprises using a third party identity verificationsystem and wherein the verifying of the credential information comprisesusing a third party credential verification system.
 7. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the potential expert is a member of a plurality ofgeographically disparate experts and potential experts.
 8. The method ofclaim 1, further comprising evaluating the expert based on feedback fromone or more of users, peers, affiliates, or other third-parties.
 9. Themethod of claim 8 further comprising determining whether to deactivateand remove the expert from the consultation system based on theevaluating.
 10. An apparatus, comprising: an accounts engine to receiveidentity information and credential information at a web server from apotential expert; at least one verification module to verify theidentity information and at least a portion of the credentialinformation received from the potential expert; and an acceptance moduleto determine whether to accept the potential expert as an expert basedon a result from at the least one verification module, wherein theacceptance module is further to determine whether the potential expertmeets minimum requirements in a selected category, the minimumrequirements being based on characteristics of other experts in theselected category, wherein a testing module administers a customerservice skill test to the potential expert, and wherein the accountsengine automatically suggests to the potential expert the selectedcategory best suited to the expert's qualifications; and to activate,using one or more processors, an account associated with the potentialexpert to become an expert and to allow the expert to provide answers onthe consultation system when the potential expert is accepted.
 11. Theapparatus of claim 10 further comprising a testing module to provide atest to the potential expert and to evaluate a result of the test. 12.The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the acceptance module is further todetermine whether there is a need for a new expert in a selectedcategory.
 13. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the at least oneverification module further provides the potential expert with one ormore identity test questions to verify the identity of the potentialexpert.
 14. The apparatus of claim 10, further comprising a qualitycontrol engine to evaluate the expert based on feedback from one or moreof users, peers, affiliates, or other third-parties.
 15. The apparatusof claim 14, wherein the quality control engine is further to determinewhether to deactivate and remove the expert from the consultation systembased on the evaluation.
 16. A non-transitory machine-readable storagemedium having embodied thereon instructions which when executed by atleast one processor, causes a machine to perform operations comprising:receiving identity information and credential information at a webserver from a potential expert; verifying the identity information andat least a portion of the credential information received from thepotential expert; determining whether to accept the potential expert asan expert based on a result of the verifying of the identity andcredential information; determining whether the potential expert meetsminimum requirements in a selected category, wherein the minimumrequirements are based on characteristics of other experts in theselected category; administering a customer service skill test to thepotential expert; automatically suggesting to the potential expert theselected category best suited to the expert's qualifications; andactivating an account associated with the potential expert on the webserver to allow the potential expert to become an expert and to allowthe expert to provide answers on the consultation system when thepotential expert is accepted.
 17. The non-transitory machine-readablestorage medium of claim 16, wherein the method further comprisesdetermining one or more categories for the expert based on thecredential information received from the potential expert.